Updated Bruce Lehrmann Pt2 * ACT Bar clears former DPP head Shane Drumgold of misconduct

[Kurve]

Here is PART 1

Historical Rape Allegation Against Fmr AG Christian Porter
The Alexander Matters matters

Just a reminder, this is the crime board and we need to be aware that there will be victims of crime either watching this thread or engaging in here from time to time. A degree of respect in all discussions is expected.

LINK TO TIMELINE
CJS INQUIRY
FINAL REPORT – BOARD OF INQUIRY – CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Joint media statement – Chief Minister and Attorney-General



FIONA BROWN - AFFIDAVIT

 

[FIGJAM]

Saw this yesterday. Hard to believe that stealthing wasn't illegal in Qld until now. A fairly obvious form of non-consent I'd have thought!

Stealthing is now criminalised in Queensland. Here's what you need to know

New sexual consent laws come into effect from Monday, along with the criminalisation of stealthing.

www.abc.net.au

Bruce has other concerns other than the stealthing component. Does beg the question though, that if the only charge on him was stealthing, would he have escaped "The Lion's Den" for a second time?

 

[Lady O]

Saw this yesterday. Hard to believe that stealthing wasn't illegal in Qld until now. A fairly obvious form of non-consent I'd have thought!

Stealthing is now criminalised in Queensland. Here's what you need to know

New sexual consent laws come into effect from Monday, along with the criminalisation of stealthing.

www.abc.net.au

Bruce has other concerns other than the stealthing component. Does beg the question though, that if the only charge on him was stealthing, would he have escaped "The Lion's Den" for a second time?

I thought this was what BL was charged with? If stealthing wasn't rape, why was he charged with rape?

 

[Festerz]

I thought this was what BL was charged with? If stealthing wasn't rape, why was he charged with rape?

Lehrmann IS charged with rape because the allegation is that he undertook sexual intercourse without consent.

Lehrmann was charged with two counts of sexual assault - rape - for alleged offences committed in October 2021. Toowoomba magistrate, Mark Howden, committed Lehrmann to stand trial having found that:

“In my view, when considering the evidence as a whole, it is sufficient at this stage for me to reach a conclusion that a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could return a verdict of guilty,”

The alleged victim claims she awoke to find Lehrmann on top of and penetrating her without a condom, despite her having insisted upon a condom being used during their earlier consensual encounter.

She alleges she pulled her body away and told him to “stop what you are doing” but that he instead climbed back on top of her saying, “it’s OK, it’s OK,” continuing the unwanted sex before ejaculating inside her.

“I did not consent to him penetrating me,” she told police. “I was not enthusiastically laying there. I was so in my head, I was in shock.”

The sexual assault (rape charge) was laid because it is alleged the victim made the explicit condition for sexual intercourse (use of a condom) which was ignored by Lehrmann. It is therefore covered under 'consent' provisions under legislation applying when the alleged offence occurred.

Changes to Qld laws around 'stealthing', which have also been legislated in most other jurisdictions, relate to affirmative consent - i.e. explicit, informed, and voluntary agreement. As with other matters relating to sexual engagement, the person removing the condom during intercourse can no longer rely on the defence of implied consent. The Toowoomba sexual assault allegations concerning Lehrmann were never about implied consent as the victim stated she explicitly required that a condom be used.

(Note: Edited to correct grammar errors and to labour the legal distinction between explicit/affirmative consent and 'implied' consent to assist with clarity)

 

[Kurve]

State parliament has heard allegations of inappropriate behaviour and a “protection racket” at the state’s police union.

 

[Festerz]

State parliament has heard allegations of inappropriate behaviour and a “protection racket” at the state’s police union.

The allegations of 'abhorrent culture and intolerant behaviours' within the South Australian Police Union (Police Association of South Australia - PASA) was made by upper house Member and former local TV reporter Frank Pangallo under Parliamentary Privilege yesterday and follows similar allegations made in the SA Legislative Council by Mr Pangallo on 11 September.

Mr Pangallo read into Hansard allegations made in writing via email and letter by several female members of PASA, including the Secretary of the Police Association of South Australia, Ms Bernadette Zimmermann regarding behaviours towards herself and other female employees of the union.

The main (by by no means sole) target of the allegations concern then union president Mr Mark Carroll during 2020 and 2021.

I make no claim as to the veracity or accuracy of the allegations made in Parliament yesterday, which are available in full on the SA Parliamentary Hansard website - check out the Hansard entry for the Legislative Council sitting of Wednesday 25 September here:

Hansard Calendar Search

View all Hansard Events for the year 2024.

hansardsearch.parliament.sa.gov.au

But I think it is important to understand at least some of the context of the allegations and how they surfaced.

Yesterday Mr Pangallo, read into Hansard a detailed statement of claims by another member of the police union staff whose name was not disclosed. That letter spans many pages and alleges that:

'The Police Association was, and unfortunately still is, an unsafe workplace for female staff. The toxic culture was led by former President Carroll, fuelled further by the Assistant Secretary, including disrespectful, offensive, belittling and derogatory language, strategic intimidation and bullying. While spearheaded by the President, other senior male figures also engaged in these behaviours by encouraging, condoning, participating in or ignoring
inappropriate behaviour towards female staff and unfavoured police officer members.'

During my employment at PASA I witnessed the former President and Assistant Secretary speak frequently about PASA staff using disrespectful, offensive, belittling, and derogatory language.'

A large number of both specific and general/hearsay allegations of that behaviour are then listed which I will not outline here for obvious reasons. And amongst them is the claim that Mr Carroll and his assistant secretary Steve Whetton re-enacted the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins in the kitchen at PASA in front of a female staff member as a form of 'black humour'.

As is in the case in other states, the SA Police Union has a strong presence in this state and has a strong relationship with the SA Police. IMHO that is in itself not unusual but may become problematic when allegations of toxic workplaces and management surface - particularly when they are aired publicly. This is especially true when accountability lines between the government executive and their police force are blurred. But that is a matter for another thread.

But I'm also of the view that the reading of lengthy (and mostly anonymous) untested and unproven allegations into Parliamentary Hansard by a politician with a strong background in tabloid outrage journalism is not necessarily a good outcome for public policy either. That too is a matter for another thread.

 

[jason_recliner]

PoS union officials? Tell me it isn't so!

 

[Festerz]

PoS union officials? Tell me it isn't so!

What it is imho is another example of absolute power corrupting absolutely with leaders focussed on internal politics and power struggles rather than the needs of their own members.

Probably the most bizarre aspect of the whole thing is that the allegations of sexism, bullying and intimidation within the SA Police Union have been led by the Union's elected Secretary Ms Bernadette Zimmerman against the (former) president, Mark Carroll who is Ms Zimmermann’s own brother.

“I Don’t Want to Speak to that F***wit”: More Allegations that SA Police Union is Full of Arrogant, Disrepectful Morons

New revelations have emerged about the highly dysfunctional Police Association of South Australia, which is now led by the shady Wade Burns. Burns was allowed to keep his job at sleazy SAPOL despite aggressively and indecently assaulting a female colleague at an Adelaide nightclub in 2017...

southaustraliapolice.com

(Edit: Kurve, feel free to delete or shift if this is getting too far off the thread subject, although it does in my opinion demonstrate yet another aspect of systemic cultural failings within police forces that we have discussed previously in this thread).

 

[Kurve]

What it is imho is another example of absolute power corrupting absolutely with leaders focussed on internal politics and power struggles rather than the needs of their own members.

Probably the most bizarre aspect of the whole thing is that the allegations of sexism, bullying and intimidation within the SA Police Union have been led by the Union's elected Secretary Ms Bernadette Zimmerman against the (former) president, Mark Carroll who is Ms Zimmermann’s own brother.

“I Don’t Want to Speak to that F***wit”: More Allegations that SA Police Union is Full of Arrogant, Disrepectful Morons

New revelations have emerged about the highly dysfunctional Police Association of South Australia, which is now led by the shady Wade Burns. Burns was allowed to keep his job at sleazy SAPOL despite aggressively and indecently assaulting a female colleague at an Adelaide nightclub in 2017...

southaustraliapolice.com

(Edit: Kurve, feel free to delete or shift if this is getting too far off the thread subject).

It's okay for now while we wait for the decision in the defamation trial and for the Toowoomba trial to start, I appreciate you filling in with a bit of context as I couldn't get in to that article straight away. Felt I had to post it though since it mentioned Higgins.

 

[Run n Spread]

It's okay for now while we wait for the decision in the defamation trial and for the Toowoomba trial to start, I appreciate you filling in with a bit of context as I couldn't get in to that article straight away. Felt I had to post it though since it mentioned Higgins.

Haven't been following this closely? When does the Toowoomba trial start? Obviously I'm assuming he's been committed to trial?

 

[Kurve]

Haven't been following this closely? When does the Toowoomba trial start? Obviously I'm assuming he's been committed to trial?

Yes, this on 4th July.

Former Liberal party staffer Bruce Lehrmann has been committed to stand trial on two counts of rape.

A magistrate has ruled there was sufficient evidence to have the matter determined by a jury or a judge alone.

Bruce Lehrmann committed to stand trial on two counts of rape

The 29-year-old faces two counts of rape, alleged to have occurred in Toowoomba, west of Brisbane, in October 2021.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Lady O]

Yes, this on 4th July.

Former Liberal party staffer Bruce Lehrmann has been committed to stand trial on two counts of rape.

A magistrate has ruled there was sufficient evidence to have the matter determined by a jury or a judge alone.

Bruce Lehrmann committed to stand trial on two counts of rape

The 29-year-old faces two counts of rape, alleged to have occurred in Toowoomba, west of Brisbane, in October 2021.

www.abc.net.au

Ok, so no more talk of "stealthing" apparently, seeing as how it wasn't illegal in Queensland until last week.

 

[Kurve]

Ok, so no more talk of "stealthing" apparently, seeing as how it wasn't illegal in Queensland until last week.

I'm not sure anybody promoted stealthing as one of the actual charges.

It's an alleged rape. She asked him to stop and he refused.

 

[Lady O]

I'm not sure anybody promoted stealthing as one of the actual charges.

It's an alleged rape. She asked him to stop and he refused.

In the beginning it was spoken of as stealthing on this thread. I seem to remember a news article about one act of consensual sex and two of non-consensual due, to him not wearing a condom or removing a condom.

 

[BFew]

The Lehrmann related legal cases just keep on piling up.
He's unstoppable.

Here's another one (currently under a suppression order review) involving a now ex-journo (Amelia Saw) from her time working on the Spotlight program.

Wouldn't be surprised if there's a few more of them that are currently totally unreported because of suppression orders (actual or under review).

Channel Seven embroiled in fresh legal saga as journalist sues

Channel Seven's list of disgruntled staff continues to grow as another journalist takes the network to court claiming she experienced a 'hostile working environment' while employed there.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Festerz]

The Lehrmann related legal cases just keep on piling up.
He's unstoppable.

Here's another one (currently under a suppression order review) involving a now ex-journo (Amelia Saw) from her time working on the Spotlight program.

In my view it's more a case of the pre-existing endemic misogynistic culture of Kerry Stokes' Seven Network, as revealed in the recent Corners program, that led it to take up the Bruce Lehrmann cause so enthusiastically in the first place.

It's a culture that is not just unique to Seven of course, but one that was damningly exposed as a result of evidence presented during the Lehrmann defamation case.

Lehrmann did not create that culture - it's one that exists across society and protected by political power and certain vocal sections of the both commercial and social media. It provides a refuge for predators of the likes of Bruce Lehrmann. Since the advent of the 'Me Too' movement and the courage of individuals and public broadcast investigative programs like the ABC's 4 Corners, it has been increasingly called out for what it is.

 

[Festerz]

It's okay for now while we wait for the decision in the defamation trial and for the Toowoomba trial to start, I appreciate you filling in with a bit of context as I couldn't get in to that article straight away. Felt I had to post it though since it mentioned Higgins.

Cheers.

And while we all wait for the next chapter in the Lehrmann/Reynolds legal saga. the NewsCorp cheerleader for Team Lehrmann/Reynolds, Janet Albrechtsen has herself decided to take a holiday. But not to worry, for the entertainment of all of us she's found a new cause to write back home about - the wokeness of safety signage in black bear territory in Canada.

I kid you not. Yes, the right wing think tank chairman and Australian columnist who last week admitted she was "never terribly interested" in what happened on the night that Brittney Higgins was r*ped but was more concerned about Bruce Lehrmann getting a fair trial has got all bothered about signs designed to keep her out of the jaws and claws of protective black bears.



For those in the TL;DR crowd, Rick Moreton gives us a good summary...

'So it was for Janet Albrechsten who, even on a pleasant Spring-time hike in Canada’s British Columbia, found the threat of officious overreach so unnerving as to be chemically lobotomised by it. Here she was, going for a simple stroll, when she saw a sign that advised her the track was ending and chose to ignore it because she was sick of rules and then promptly became lost on a mountain for several hours surrounded by bears. Terrible. Some of those bears went home that day white as ghosts because they ran into an Albrechtsen.'

 

[Kurve]

Cheers.

And while we all wait for the next chapter in the Lehrmann/Reynolds legal saga. the NewsCorp cheerleader for Team Lehrmann/Reynolds, Janet Albrechtsen has herself decided to take a holiday. But not to worry, for the entertainment of all of us she's found a new cause to write back home about - the wokeness of safety signage in black bear territory in Canada.

I kid you not. Yes, the right wing think tank chairman and Australian columnist who last week admitted she was "never terribly interested" in what happened on the night that Brittney Higgins was r*ped but was more concerned about Bruce Lehrmann getting a fair trial has got all bothered about signs designed to keep her out of the jaws and claws of protective black bears.



For those in the TL;DR crowd, Rick Moreton gives us a good summary...

'So it was for Janet Albrechsten who, even on a pleasant Spring-time hike in Canada’s British Columbia, found the threat of officious overreach so unnerving as to be chemically lobotomised by it. Here she was, going for a simple stroll, when she saw a sign that advised her the track was ending and chose to ignore it because she was sick of rules and then promptly became lost on a mountain for several hours surrounded by bears. Terrible. Some of those bears went home that day white as ghosts because they ran into an Albrechtsen.'

Very funny. I wonder if her going away is strategic. Could we expect some kind of news that might put added pressure on Albrechtsen, something in the coming week perhaps on Sofronoff?

Or the Reynolds defamation trial?

 

[CM86]

At Parliament House there Is footage everywhere but the suites, which Is run by security guards from a company not by Protective Services Officers /PSO).

About 10:05am, Monday 15 April 2019, spoke with FA and provided an update, She state that she would continue to retrieve CCTV from Parliament House.
View attachment 1989673

10 April 2019
FA called me, An update was provided and she stated she was still following up the CCTV at Parliament House In relation to the Investigation

View attachment 1989674


15 April 2019, spoke with FA and provided an update, She stated that she would continue to retrieve CCTV from Parliament House.

View attachment 1989675


4 May 2019, I sent an email to FA to follow up on Parliament House CCTV availability.

View attachment 1989680


9 May 201.9, I spoke with FA who stated the CCTV footage from Parliament House would not be released until after the election, nor would It be able to be viewed again.

View attachment 1989681

Requests are

View attachment 1989682


4 December 2019, I received email correspondence from Departmentof Parliamentary Services, regarding the CCTV footage from Parliament House. The email stated that the CCTV would not be provided to police.

View attachment 1989684





Saturday 13 April 2019, I received an email whilst not on shift from Ms HIGGINS. This email stated that she did not wish to proceed with an Investigation at this time. (I wonder why...)
The timeline.
23//03 Higgins was r*ped. The cleaner was called after a woman was found naked in Reynolds office.
26/03 Bruce is fired.
01/04 Higgins is called into the room she was r*ped, to discuss her reason for being there that night.
08/04 Higgins is taken "to Winchester Police Centre to speak with Police".
10/04 CCTV footage still not available.
13/04 Almost a month after being r*ped and having to just continue on with life as is, Higgins emailed to say she didn't wish to proceed at this time. (Far too many people can understand choice from Higgins).

18/09 CCTV footage still not available to investigating officer.

20/10 A media enquiry about this incident may be raised in Senate Estimates.


Ms HIGGINS returned my phone call. I notified her of the Information I had been told. She became increasing distressed and very upset via the telephone, she was unable to speak.

View attachment 1989687








Including a link so the information is all available.

What is this link and how does it relate to all of you snippets above? Is it the wrong link?

It's nice that Cleaves (AFP) and Harman (ACT Pol) were still helping, but there is no "investigating officer" with no active case.

You never responded to this information. You just cast doubt on the factual statements and timeline that I provided.

 

[CM86]

Lehrmann IS charged with rape because the allegation is that he undertook sexual intercourse without consent.

Lehrmann was charged with two counts of sexual assault - rape - for alleged offences committed in October 2021. Toowoomba magistrate, Mark Howden, committed Lehrmann to stand trial having found that:

“In my view, when considering the evidence as a whole, it is sufficient at this stage for me to reach a conclusion that a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could return a verdict of guilty,”

The alleged victim claims she awoke to find Lehrmann on top of and penetrating her without a condom, despite her having insisted upon a condom being used during their earlier consensual encounter.

She alleges she pulled her body away and told him to “stop what you are doing” but that he instead climbed back on top of her saying, “it’s OK, it’s OK,” continuing the unwanted sex before ejaculating inside her.

“I did not consent to him penetrating me,” she told police. “I was not enthusiastically laying there. I was so in my head, I was in shock.”

The sexual assault (rape charge) was laid because it is alleged the victim made the explicit condition for sexual intercourse (use of a condom) which was ignored by Lehrmann. It is therefore covered under 'consent' provisions under legislation applying when the alleged offence occurred.

Changes to Qld laws around 'stealthing', which have also been legislated in most other jurisdictions, relate to affirmative consent - i.e. explicit, informed, and voluntary agreement. As with other matters relating to sexual engagement, the person removing the condom during intercourse can no longer rely on the defence of implied consent. The Toowoomba sexual assault allegations concerning Lehrmann were never about implied consent as the victim stated she explicitly required that a condom be used.

(Note: Edited to correct grammar errors and to labour the legal distinction between explicit/affirmative consent and 'implied' consent to assist with clarity)

Thank you and others, as usual, for such a great post and for keeping the thread honest.
It's impossible for the admin or moderators to seem 'impartial' if they only ever correct 'one side', even if mostly 'one side' keeps needing moderation.
Constantly do things that require moderation, then call victimhood for being moderated more than others.
Squeaky wheel and all that.



It's always amazing to me the deliberate acts of ignorance used as a weapon or a shield, in order to maintain a specific 'pro-rape' position.

Is it ok to call people who continuously support rapists, and continuously defend rapists, and continuously defend people who are paid to defend rapists, and continuously defend highly influential people who have actively corrupted our legal system to defend rapists...​

As pro-rapist?...​

If not, I'll change it to "conscientious observer". As long as we all know what it means.

Because, I'd love to hear a reason why they shouldn't be called by their actions, other than "It's offensive".



Picture unrelated.
Just going to point out that it's always amazing to me that the people who have the most extreme positions based in minutiae against the rape victim, defend themselves with ignorance when it comes to the rapist/'other side'.

Ok, so no more talk of "stealthing" apparently, seeing as how it wasn't illegal in Queensland until last week.

I won't post a summation of your post, because It's highly abuseive.

But you'd better not ever mention anything against Higgin's that isn't illegal at the time, and proven as an illegal action she undertook.

I've just deleted multiple times what I'd like to say to you, because it's pointless and I don't want to be banned.

 

[Big_Birdy]

The conduct which amounts to stealthing could (and almost certainly would in most cases) still be rape prior to any new legislation.

It is a significant enough change in the nature of the act to vitiate the consent.

 

[Festerz]

The conduct which amounts to stealthing could (and almost certainly would in most cases) still be rape prior to any new legislation.

Correct.

Although, as Criminology Lecturer, Dr Bianca Fileborn, outlined in her 2017 case pushing for the explicit inclusion of stealthing under the criminal code for sexual assault in both NSW, Victoria and other jurisdictions, 'stealthing could be prosecuted under existing laws in many jurisdictions but “the challenge is proving that a consensual act became non-consensual to the criminal standard”, (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt.)

See:

“Is this rape?” The legal grey-area around prosecuting ‘stealthing’ in Australia - triple j

When Hack published a confronting first-person account of sexual violence - where a partner removed a condom during sex without consent, now referred to as ‘stealthing - we were met with a massive response.

www.abc.net.au

As I outlined in my previous post that CM86 kindly reposted today, the reason why stealthing has been specifically included in the criminal codes of most Australian jurisdictions is to make it clear that the practice IS rape. And not just to clarify the issue for police and prosecutors but to send an clear message to those, like our poster 'Lady' O, that this behaviour is not just inexcusable and intolerable in terms of human decency and respect but illegal.

And again, for reference, generally speaking 'stealthing' is defined as a person deliberately doing one of three things against the wishes of a person they have sex with:

• Doesn’t wear a condom

• Removes a condom

• Damages a condom.

Although the specific wording differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, it doesn’t matter if these things are done before sex, or during it. But the person who wants a condom to be used must first have let the other person know this, by saying or doing something which was specifically what the alleged victim of the Lehrmann Toowoomba rape has alleged.

The Australian jurisdictions which have included specific reference to stealthing in their criminal codes (SA, ACT, Tasmania, NSW, Victoria and now Qld) have done so on the advice of research such as this that shows that only 15% of Australians are familiar with the term stealthing and 56% do not know what its legal status.

**

 

[Underarrest_]

Correct.

Although, as Criminology Lecturer, Dr Bianca Fileborn, outlined in her 2017 case pushing for the explicit inclusion of stealthing under the criminal code for sexual assault in both NSW, Victoria and other jurisdictions, 'stealthing could be prosecuted under existing laws in many jurisdictions but “the challenge is proving that a consensual act became non-consensual to the criminal standard”, (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt.)

See:

“Is this rape?” The legal grey-area around prosecuting ‘stealthing’ in Australia - triple j

When Hack published a confronting first-person account of sexual violence - where a partner removed a condom during sex without consent, now referred to as ‘stealthing - we were met with a massive response.

www.abc.net.au

As I outlined in my previous post that CM86 kindly reposted today, the reason why stealthing has been specifically included in the criminal codes of most Australian jurisdictions is to make it clear that the practice IS rape. And not just to clarify the issue for police and prosecutors but to send an clear message to those, like our poster 'Lady' O, that this behaviour is not just inexcusable and intolerable in terms of human decency and respect but illegal.

And again, for reference, generally speaking 'stealthing' is defined as a person deliberately doing one of three things against the wishes of a person they have sex with:

• Doesn’t wear a condom

• Removes a condom

• Damages a condom.

Although the specific wording differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, it doesn’t matter if these things are done before sex, or during it. But the person who wants a condom to be used must first have let the other person know this, by saying or doing something which was specifically what the alleged victim of the Lehrmann Toowoomba rape has alleged.

The Australian jurisdictions which have included specific reference to stealthing in their criminal codes (SA, ACT, Tasmania, NSW, Victoria and now Qld) have done so on the advice of research such as this that shows that only 15% of Australians are familiar with the term stealthing and 56% do not know what its legal status.

**

Totally correct, in simple terms if you're not consenting without a condom used during sex, you’re not consenting to the sex.
Makes sense to me.

 

[Festerz]

Totally correct, in simple terms if you're not consenting without a condom used during sex, you’re not consenting to the sex.
Makes sense to me.

What is common sense and what is common decency seems to be something that is lost in modern society.

Hence the need for explicit regulations to make it clear to those who don't gaff about anyone else, what is expected of them - for the protection of them and others.

And the irony is those whose actions and words lead to the need for more explicit rules and regulations and bigger bureaucracies to enforce them are the very ones who moan loudest about government rules and regulations interfering with their 'freedums'

Take Janet Albrechtsen for example.....

 

[FIGJAM]

You never responded to this information. You just cast doubt on the factual statements and timeline that I provided.

You ask an unreasonable amount of questions from me, which I have at times answered in full and you have often completely ignored any points.

Then if I conclude from the information that I’ve already read during the Lee run defamation case that people in various positions of employ acted reasonably around that 2019 period, you lose it at me.

It’s for those two reasons I said that you and I are done in this discussion.

 

[CM86]

You said she did and FIGJAM put doubt on whether Reynolds knew.

You were incredibly lucky.


His timetable is almost impossibly busy, and even months later he won't have time to respond to the simplest of questions.

It's almost like he lies about what he's able to engage with.

Lucky he was there to put doubt on whether Reynolds knew.